A network tournament is one leaderboard that several operators compete in at once. For a small brand it is the only way to advertise a prize pool worth talking about; for a platform provider it is a reason for every brand to promote the same event on the same weekend. It is also where three hard questions stop being theoretical: whose currency, whose players are visible to whom, and whose money is in the pot.
If brands take stakes in euros, pounds and lira, a leaderboard ranked on raw amounts ranks by currency rather than by play. Every entry is converted to one scoring currency using rates fixed for the tournament, so a player's position cannot move because a foreign exchange market did.
The decision that matters is what happens when a rate is missing. Treating the amount as though it were already in the scoring currency keeps the tournament running and quietly awards ranks nobody earned, with nothing on the leaderboard showing it happened. Ludora refuses the entry instead: a missing rate is an error an operator fixes, not a default the engine picks.
Identity is scoped to the viewer. Every operator sees its own players in full, exactly as in a single-brand tournament, and sees everyone else as a brand label and a position. Aggregate figures — total entries, pool size, how the brands compare — are shared, because they are what makes the event worth joining. No operator receives an identifiable list of a competitor's customers, and the boundary is enforced where the leaderboard is built rather than in the front end.
Ludora does not hold the prize pool, and that is a deliberate limit rather than a missing feature: holding other companies' prize money would make the platform a payment institution and put an operator's liability inside somebody else's system. The engine produces a settlement per operator — given the final standings and the agreed prize structure, what each brand owes its own winners — and each brand pays from its own wallet through the reward path it already uses.
A network tournament is a single tournament with one leaderboard and one prize pool that several operator brands enter at the same time. Each brand's players compete against players from the other brands, which lets a smaller operator advertise a prize pool larger than it could fund alone and gives a platform provider one event to promote across all its brands.
Every entry is converted to one scoring currency using rates fixed for the tournament, so a player's position cannot move because a foreign exchange market did. If a rate for a currency is missing, the entry is refused rather than treated as a 1:1 conversion — an assumed rate would award ranks nobody earned and leave no trace on the leaderboard.
No. Each operator sees its own players in full detail and every other brand's players as a brand label and a rank. Aggregate figures — total entries, pool size, how brands compare — are shared, because they are what makes the event worth joining, but no operator gets an identifiable list of a competitor's customers.
Each operator does. Ludora calculates a per-operator settlement from the final standings and the agreed prize structure, and each brand pays its own winners from its own wallet through the same reward path it uses for single-brand tournaments. The platform never takes custody of the pool, which keeps it out of the payments and licensing obligations that would come with holding other companies' prize money.